From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unifying "foo-mode"s and "foo-ts-mode"s Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:20:35 +0000 Message-ID: <87fscw9av0.fsf@posteo.net> References: <877cyagmti.fsf@posteo.net> <831qoi85u7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt76f4n4.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfgy6l0n.fsf@gnu.org> <877cy9b1k0.fsf_-_@posteo.net> <83zgb55409.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15024"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, casouri@gmail.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 30 16:21:34 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pBHCP-0003hG-Bp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:21:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pBHBU-0007p0-I2; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:20:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pBHBT-0007oV-2C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:20:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pBHBR-00058F-Bd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:20:34 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C4C42401A1 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:20:30 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1672413630; bh=GYbF+qtmOdAALY+129wLLWd94fFM0muybXx4NlgfxK8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=L3U6SNcgXPWCf+H5NFkT76f2bKnDljXhS2K9vOwvleLNgcPtwSgFKLgeq2xkX65G5 SSV1NuckY6eDU6UknFQ3JpO0qyva8q8rVasOpK64LipdDJ6EbLHeThIkxd1/InwEIC OYxxf5cY2KOpSsTKID0xOoIhmwYXb6Fyaw0ju8p9czguBMuz1fokCsa4UsSskDGBiM +NVqVmMtUEBB53zAQ/s0ekY4lq8n7ebMZM2j46ZwoX9n5Nakd73hWJsKdpExMbu2PT Qcg4KTXnhPD6SlNrzJcGIjqsXpaupHo6DHsqqqSTrRUkxSkvkx14TgG8N9m6G84lv1 ZI31CTw3hBNYQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Nk88Y3szdz9rxH; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:20:29 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <83zgb55409.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 30 Dec 2022 17:02:14 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:302112 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Yuan Fu >> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:58:39 +0000 >> >> I have attached a sketch of my proposal with support for Python. >> Instead of a separate python-ts-mode, we regulate tree-sitter support >> using a user option `treesit-enabled-modes'. It can either be a list >> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> (setq treesit-enabled-modes '(python-mode c-mode)) >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >> >> or generally enable tree-sitter >> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> (setq treesit-enabled-modes t) >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > I think we want to let the users say, for every single mode, whether > they want to use the treesit-enabled variant or not, and also to be > able to go back to the non-treesit mode later in the session (e.g., if > they don't like the results). A list is not a convenient means for > doing so. How come? When presented in the customise interface we could make it out to be a set where users get to pick what modes they want. And updating the value works fine whenever a mode is re-applied. >> >> All a major modes has to do is pass a parser configuration >> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> (define-derived-mode python-mode prog-mode "Python" >> "Major mode for editing Python files. >> >> \\{python-mode-map}" >> :syntax-table python-mode-syntax-table >> :parser-conf python-mode--treesit-conf >> ... >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >> >> that expands to >> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> (when-let >> ((conf python-mode--treesit-conf) >> ((cond >> ((listp treesit-enabled-modes) >> (memq 'python-mode treesit-enabled-modes)) >> ((eq treesit-enabled-modes t)))) >> ((treesit-ready-p >> (nth 0 conf))) >> (parser >> (treesit-parser-create >> (nth 0 conf)))) >> (setq-local treesit-font-lock-feature-list >> (nth 1 conf) >> treesit-font-lock-settings >> (nth 2 conf) >> treesit-defun-name-function >> (nth 3 conf) >> treesit-defun-type-regexp >> (nth 4 conf) >> imenu-create-index-function >> (nth 5 conf)) >> (treesit-major-mode-setup)) >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >> >> at *the end* of the major mode definition. Note that if no parser >> configuration was parsed, the entire expression is byte-compiled away, >> so there is no run-time overhead for other modes. > > What does this mean in user-facing behavior? Does it mean that if > tree-sitter is not available, or the Python grammar fails to load for > some reason, Emacs will silently fall back to the "traditional" > python-mode? If so, I don't think this is what we want. The failure > for loading tree-sitter support should not be silent. I am not sure why? Tree-sitter is an improvement in that it allows Emacs to provide better highlighting and knowledge of the syntax, but in the end it isn't something you think about actively -- or even should have to think about.This is all backend stuff that doesn't interest the casual user. I strongly believe that the principle of "graceful degradation" is the right approach here. And in the end, if the tree-sitter support is hidden behind new modes, I know already that most people (who don't use starter packs) will never notice their existence and won't make use of the support. There are people still using linum-mode, even though display-line-numbers-mode has been around for a while. > These are exactly the aspects of the behavior we discussed a month > ago, and what we have now is the result of those discussions. Could you point me to the thread(s)? I did not have the time to follow the threads in detail a month ago.